What are your thoughts on "Court upholds Md. gay marriage ban"?

Question

Court upholds Md. gay marriage ban
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070918/ap_on_re_us/maryland_gay_marriage

Answer 1

good call, made in good taste.

although i do agree that it shouldn't necessarily be a government issue. churches could simply refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexuals if they wish, and as they should. the church would never legitimize that type of thing.

Answer 2

It's a horrible ruling which shows the flaws with trying to ban same-sex marriage. First, the CA State Supreme Court court ignored 1996's Roemer v Evans-The U.S. Supreme Court said initiatives cannot be used to disenfranchise entire groups of citizens. You can give people as an entire class more rights but not less than other classes. The second flaw is that it does not even accomplish the allegedly publicly stated goal of 'protecting' heterosexual marriage. The CA same sex couples who had married before the ruling will still be allowed to remain married and enjoy legal benefits. If heterosexual marriage is so 'endangered; by same sex marriage in CA--and the ban text defines marriage as being between one man and one woman period, that is pretty clear. Not actually implementing the ban consistently further signals how flawed the concept of a ban attempt is. If some GLBT Californians are able to have their marriages remain legal--but not others, hasn't the traditional definition of marriage already been altered? Aren't all the people who voted for the ban now concerned about the sanctity of their heterosexual unions? Some same-sex unions will still exist in the state! This is another reason why the ban attempt is stupid and time wasting.

Answer 3

Well the only prerogative a court has is to make a decision on the basis of the constitutionality of the information presented. There's nothing in the Maryland state constitution that would stop that 1973 law.

However, the law is total bullshit, and a well written constitution should have limited the power of any government entity to make any provision against an act which suffered no victim, and certainly with no involvement in an institution based solely on personal belief and conviction.

Though I do have to disagree with the decision, in that there is no specific provision in the Maryland state Constitution stating that it has the power to limit a religious based institution like marriage on the basis of gender, therefor, it does not exist. The government has no constitutionally authorised power to be involved in the matter of marriage. Not to grant marriages to heterosexual couples and not to forbid homosexual couples from them.

Answer 4

Agree!

Maryland makes about the 23rd out of 25 states to take a courageous stand against in-their-face homosexual tyranny, and The Homosexual Agenda undergoes another staggering blow.

Because the people JUST SAID NO, they will now not have to worry about men marching down the aisle with their male dogs in a few years, and being kept awake at night with strange combination of noises, including screaming, barking and yelping. It might even prevent animal abuse.

Also, marriage to corpses won't be a concern either, because necrophiliacs won't be motivated to seek an absurd special right to marry.

Now, if we can get a federal amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman as a double firewall of protection, that would be just great!

1 Man + 1 Woman = Marriage!

Answer 5

For the government to dictate what marriage is borders on criminal. Marriage is the union of two people.

To insist that it only be male/female marriages smacks of a violation of separation of church and state.

Keep religion in the home and in the church NOT in the government. Our founding fathers did not put a marriage clause in the Constitution for the simple reason it was NOT the governments business.

Gay relationships have been around for Milena. It is religion that has an issue with it.

BUT if the government insists on interfering in the relationship and marriage of two people, then they should ban not only gay marriage but,

Interracial, Intercontinental, inter-religious, international, interstate and ......if you gonna ban one ban them all.

Get god out of our government. The Constitution does not mention god what so ever....the word used is creator. Why? Separation of church and state.

Any questions?

Answer 6

I think it's a good thing, if for no other reason than it shows a state doing somthing, and hopfully that can reenforce the thought that it should be a state issue and no federal ban will happen. Though I'm under the oppinion that the gov should have no hand in marriage, no needed to get it certified, no ban on who can and can't and no ban on how many. It's isn't a gov issue, it's a personal issue.

Answer 7

Good. I think that gay people should have their own legal union to protect their legal rights and potential children. Marriage is between one man and one woman.

Answer 8

My thoughts are, it should be put before the citizens of Md. on a ballot or referendum. Let them decide it and then let the state abide by their decision.

Answer 9

I think that it was the correct and just ruling. Civil unions provide adequate support for gay relationships. Marriage needs to be reserved for relationships between men and women.

Answer 10

Don't really care, since I am not gay nor do I live in Maryland. I think it should continue to be a state issue and not a federal one.